Dear Mr. Fisk,

 

I found your recent article published in The Independent on 25th August 2007, very interesting indeed.

 

It is a welcome change that such a highly respected journalist as yourself, described by the New York Times as "probably the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain", finally has some "questions". Great! However, there are some insinuations in your article that suggest you have not informed yourself about the wealth of factual, undisputed evidence that is available in support of the 9/11 Truth position, while at the same time you have introduced new “evidence” which on the face of it seems rather ill-considered, and for which you provide no references.

 

Firstly, however, I want to point out that the tone of this article is very self-serving and insulting to many who have been researching this subject for years.  These people you call "ravers", are in reality people like me who got fed up with the stone-walling of mainstream media on the most important single issue of our time. This is enough to make anyone with a conscience angry. I am angry, and you should be angry too. Anger is warranted here.

 

You said:

 

“Usually, I have tried to tell the ‘truth’; that while there are unanswered questions about 9/11, I am the Middle East correspondent of The Independent, not the conspiracy correspondent; that I have quite enough real plots on my hands in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, etc, to worry about imaginary ones in Manhattan.”

 

Mr. Fisk, nobody wants to be a “conspiracy theorist”! We are driven to this by conscience, and because we see that if we don’t speak up that the tyrants will simply have their way unopposed. Ultimately, we speak out because we know that if the crimes of  9/11 are allowed then our liberal democratic way of life is over, and we would be fools to expect to be safe from the murderous cabal which is pulling the strings of world governments.

 

According to your wikipedia entry, you interviewed Osama Bin Laden no less than three times, yet you claim that investigating 9/11 is outside the scope of your professional expertise. Why, for example, have you remained silent all this time about the glaring discrepancies in the famous "Fatty" bin Laden confession tape released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001? Surely you agree that, even if we accept the dubious CIA “authentication” of this tape, the use of a blurry video to justify an invasion of a sovereign nation is a type of propaganda which is worthy of  Joseph Goebbels?

 

 

Immediately after 9/11 you were stationed in Pakistan. Surely you are aware of the report from the Times of India that ISI Director-General Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad  authorised the wiring of $100,000 to lead 9/11 Hijacker Muhammed Atta? You probably also know that General Ahmad was in the US when the attacks occurred and that he had meetings at the State Department after the attacks on the WTC, and that he also had a regular consultations with his US counterparts at the CIA and the Pentagon during the week prior to September 11?

 

I say probably - because you were stationed in Pakistan shortly after 11th September 2001. However, I may be wrong - if so I implore you to investigate this story and write it up in The Independent.

 

you go on to say in your article:

 

“My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?”

 

This is the famous incompetency argument which has been used by every apologist for the official 9/11 story, and it is growing very lame and very stale. Let me point out just one thing: the fact that the government bureaucracy and the field commanders in Iraq are incompetent does not speak to the issue of the rigging of the WTC for controlled demolition, or the stand down of NORAD, or the shoot down of flight 93. Firstly, we don’t know who the demolition team was, but they appear to have done a pretty good job, so, whoever they were, they were competent enough to destroy three massive buildings and kill around 2,700 human beings. Now, we know that the “hijackers” were not competent even as pilots, yet we are expected to believe they got lucky and managed to bring down these 3 buildings exactly in the manner of a controlled demolition? Which is the more outrageous theory?

 

Mr. Fisk, by your silence all these years, you have been part of the cover-up, and you are still clinging to the shreds of your straw-man defenses of the official position, and by disparaging truth seekers who have confronted you, you demonstrate that you are still the loyal servant of the elites who fund your comfortable life-style.

 

You have pointed out that WTC 7 collapsed into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds - for that I congratulate you, however, you have also introduced pure hearsay as evidence when you say that:

 

“the body of a female air crew member was found in a Manhattan street with her hands bound.”

 

I find this rather odd, because in the same sentence you say it is easy to “dismiss” claims that explosions were reported in the towers. Wrong! It is not at all easy to dismiss these reports. Please inform yourself by watching this short presentation, or have a read of this article:

 

118 Witnesses: The Firefighter's Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers
 

Perhaps you are simply unaware of the mountain of factual evidence which can be adduced in support of the proposition that 9/11 was an “inside job” rather than an attack by a foreign enemy. If so, can I suggest you visit www.911truth.org , www.911blogger.com and my own website www.911oz.com without further delay.

 

Finally Mr. Fisk, are you prepared to take the next step by showing real support for the 9/11 Truth Movement and addressing the real issues? If so, you will have to be prepared to lose some of your current privileges. You may have to quit your job. You may have to face the scorn of your colleagues and the wrath of trained attack-dogs such as George Monbiot, who will surely write an article insinuating you have lost your marbles and need to be "retired"? Are you prepared to be marginalised and ignored by all the press except for these scathing attacks?

 

This is what you must face.

 

best regards,
Hereward Fenton
www.911oz.com